The Supreme Court Clarified when a Work Loses Legal Protection as an Object of Copyright

The Supreme Court, sitting as the Commercial Cassation Court, considered a dispute concerning the protection of proprietary copyright to the graphic image of the service ID of the National Police of Ukraine. The case also involved a claim to invalidate the copyright registration certificate and to establish the absence of proprietary copyrights to this work.

Following a cassation review, the Court concluded that there were no grounds to satisfy either the claims for copyright protection or the claims to invalidate the copyright registration certificate and recognise the absence of proprietary copyrights.

Essence of the Case

State Enterprise "Printing Plant 'Ukraine'" filed a lawsuit, alleging that State Enterprise "Printing Plant 'Zorya'" had used its official work — the graphic image of the service ID of the National Police of Ukraine — without permission. The copyright to this work was registered in 2021. The plaintiff sought recognition that the use of the work constituted a violation of its proprietary copyrights, a prohibition on further use of this graphic image in the production of service IDs for the National Police, and recovery of lost profits.

In response, State Enterprise "Printing Plant 'Zorya'" filed a counterclaim, requesting the invalidation of the copyright registration certificate and the establishment of the absence of proprietary copyrights in State Enterprise "Ukraine." According to the counterclaim plaintiff, after the Ministry of Internal Affairs order approved the service ID sample, the respective graphic image became part of an official document of a state body, which is not subject to copyright protection.

Decisions of the Courts of First and Appellate Instances

The Commercial Court of Kyiv city satisfied the original claim and denied the counterclaim. The court reasoned that the inclusion of the graphic image in the Ministry of Internal Affairs order itself does not terminate copyright, and State Enterprise "Zorya" had not obtained permission to use the work.

The Northern Appellate Commercial Court overturned this decision. The appellate court satisfied the counterclaim, invalidated the copyright registration certificate, established the absence of proprietary copyrights in State Enterprise "Ukraine," and denied the original claim. The court reasoned that the graphic image was included in the Ministry of Internal Affairs order as part of an official document and, therefore, cannot enjoy legal protection as an object of copyright.

Position and Conclusions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that this case required a determination of whether the disputed graphic image constituted an object of copyright, whether legal protection persisted after its inclusion in an official document, and whether there were grounds to invalidate the copyright registration certificate and recognise the absence of proprietary copyrights.

The Court drew attention to the fact that its previous ruling, dated 20 February 2025, had provided mandatory instructions to the lower courts regarding the new consideration of the case. However, such instructions do not constitute legal conclusions within the meaning of procedural law. The Supreme Court emphasised the need to distinguish between "instructions of the cassation court" and "legal conclusions regarding the application of the law."

The Commercial Cassation Court concluded that the mere inclusion of the graphic image in a Ministry of Internal Affairs order, as part of an official document, does not automatically signify the termination of intellectual property rights to it. At the same time, the court noted that this fact alone is also insufficient grounds to recognise exclusive proprietary copyrights for the enterprise's use of such an image. To resolve the dispute, it was necessary to assess the legal regime of the official work, the scope of acquired rights, and the nature of the use of the disputed graphic image.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that there were no grounds to satisfy the original claim regarding copyright protection, as the plaintiff failed to prove the violation of the specific proprietary rights asserted. However, the Court disagreed with satisfying the counterclaim, stating that there were no grounds to invalidate the copyright registration certificate or to recognise the absence of proprietary copyrights.

As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling only in the part denying the original claim but overturned the appellate court's decision in the part satisfying the counterclaim, denying it instead. Thus, neither party had their claims fully satisfied.

The ruling takes legal effect from the moment of its adoption, is final, and is not subject to appeal (case No. 910/19775/23).

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.